It was just a joke, man. Lighten the holy mothereffing hell up. Don't be so sensitive.
Look who is being sensitive.
I would much rather discuss Carly's consumer focus and lack of legacy product line focus than her ethnicity. I don't care where she came from, she ended up as CEO of a global enterprise. Where did you end up?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again until I am forced by act of Congress to stop: NEVER hire a CEO with a last name that sounds like a pizzeria.
Interesting strategy there. Make several lucid and well considered points, then blow your credibility with a horribly racist comment. Why would someone with an Italian name make a bad CEO exactly?
Until that display of foot-up-your-own-ass, I was right there with you, cheering on your comment.
HP made great medial lab equipment, the aforementioned testing equipment, calculators, and so forth. And while I respect that the market changes and there is a need for "My First HP" toys, the need for the real deal hasn't vanished either.
I think that Carley was much more consumer focused, (and by the way, had a big job plopped in her lap with the Conpaq merger) and didn't come from a background that valued, or perhaps even respected, the previous lines of business that made HP so great.
It's easy for MS to post Billions in profits. Heck, they haven't had R&D costs in years, just change the menu colors, increment the year number, and start burnin Offic & Windows CDs.
What a circular argument that leaves no room for disagreement because it is a fact, not an opinion.
Of course when you are forced to do things "on the cheap" you will "end up cutting corners". Who disagrees with that?
What I _do_ disagree with is that lack of funding is a reason to fail. Lack of funding, as you pointed out, is a reason to do things efficiently. But with few resources, the program still could have allocated them in a way such as to know in the design and planning stage that the project was not feasible with current resources or else designed and implemented a successful project.
They didn't have to wait for a non-existant signla from Mars to tell them that, but that is what happened.
I have a real issue with people claiming the lack of funding was a root cause of failure.
Projects fail for inadequate project management, improper planning, a flaw in the design or execution. Spending more money and having more resources makes identifying and correcting these things _easier_ but is not a failure condition for the project.
Look at the amazing strides people have made with no 'funding' save their own ingenuity and drive. Certainly the British Space Program could have, with the very same financial resources allocated differently, either identified during the design phase that they did not have enough resources to move forward or else designed a successful misssion.
It's all about the Product Development Life Cycle (Define->Design->Develop->Deploy) and the interrelation of Time-Scope-Resources that allows a project to define two of the three, but the third one is defined by the other two. (If I need scope S completed in time T then I cannot also define budget B)
I know a lot of Apple employees who play Halo 2 too. Is that a story?
No, Apple employees playing Halo 2 is not a story, since Apple doesn't make anything to remotely compete with Halo 2, a video game only available on Microsoft's Xbox platform.
If however, Apple employees were buying Windows PCs in order to play Halo (the original) which has been ported to OS X then that _would_ be a story.
This is an interesting issue because it brings up the question of the 'target market'.
To illustrate, consider the executives of a national mobile home builder. None of these executives live in the mobile homes they sell, but justify their actions because they are not in the demographic of the mobile home target market.
Conversely, consider the alternative "I liked it so much, I bought the company" situation where a product is so good and has such a broad demographic that everyone who works for them owns and uses the product.
I would argue that portable media players do not appeal to as wide a target market as say, Bic Pens. But at the same time, they are not as niche as the mobile home market either.
If Bic had their own staff showing up to company meetings with the other guy's pens, I would say they would be in same boat as Microsoft. But of course, Bic is not in that same boat.
I say they are sly as a fox, earning those extra margins for the gotta-have-it-now crowd, THEN bringing even MORE people in with the "oh its such a great deal I definitely gotta get one now!" effect.
Apple's price protection plan is a ten calendar day price matching for anyone buying something up to ten days before the price changes.
As is widely reported, those who purchased the Mac mini were sent e-mails notifying them of adjustments to the price they paid.
I think a recent blunder many remember but will soon be forgotten is the whole iMac G5 blunder.
Apple misjudged product availability and actually ran out of iMac G4's for two months before they released the iMac G5.
Yeah, the iMac G5 has relaly been making sales records at Apple, but how much of that is due to there being nothing in the iMac line for people to buy for two months?
This looks like a decent resource but I find their "timing" gudelines somewhat misleading. For instance, the PowerBook line and the iMac line both had "upgrades" to them after just two months because they had different sizes introduced (12"/17" PB and 20" iMac). This shifts the whole "average" significantly because of the short cycle.
But still, as a tool this is better than having nothing. So the question is, if the iMac G5 was announced 8/31/04 (but Apple stopped selling the G4 (7/1/04) then this G5 is currently 5 months old, or 150 days. The iMac G4 line saw it's last update (excluding the 20") 9/03 before the G5 was introduced 8/04.
By this logic, we are smack dab in the middle of the iMac G5 life cycle. Even in a best case senario, we won't see a new iMac G5 for a couple months.
[why] LCD that you cannot keep and use with another computer
Excellent point!
I am troubled with this too, but I also find myself askinging, if this iMac G5 will be relevant and useful 5, 6, 8 years from now, would I really be happy investing in a monitor that will last me that long, plus the life span of another computer? In other words, if conservatively, a Mac is relevant for five years, and I want to get two lifespans out of a monitor, I will be selecting a monitor for the next ten years. And in that ten year lifetime, will the monitor not get damaged (scratched), have a hardware failure, or become so outdated as to be irrelevant before the 10 years is up?
Such a touch decision.
I think of the iMac sort of like a Laptop - buy it the way you want it to be because you won't be able to upgrade latter. Laptops run their useful life and then nothing can be harvested but the data they held.
[Let me first say I cannot believe this 1x1px Gif is getting the press it has all over the Internet]
WIth talk of Mac mini's, iPod Shuffles, and G5 PowerBooks, I cannot get any pulse on Imac G5 upgrades.
My laptop went out on me last week and I want to replace it with an iMac G5 (yeah, I know it isn't a laptop) but don't want to be one of those people who buys the computer and then two weeks later news of significant improvements emerge.
Any buying advice on iMac G5 timing? While you're at it, thoughts on the $400 permium for the 20" over the 17"? (also doubles the HD to 160 GB I believe).
It is interesting to me that the Mac Mini uses a Laptop hard drive. The Mac Mini and iMac G5 also share the same laptop slot-loading drive as the PowerBooks. Airport cards in desktops and laptops are identical too. The Mac Mini does NOT use laptop ram but the iMac line does. Obviously the iPod is using some small hard drive, perhaps one also used in laptops, but I am only guessing.
The point is that Apple is enjoying some economies of scale. By buying larger quantities of laptop parts, they not only get better per unit pricing, but also reduce inventories, support costs, engineering overhead, etc.
If they are smart, the big PC makers will follow suite inroder to reduce costs for their laptops as well as provide cooler desktops.
Apple recognized with the iMac that the computer needed to move from boxy to foxy. Dell, Gateway, and others tried but couldn't think outside the box. They just used black cases or rounded some edges. The Mac mini is really an evolution from the original iMac and is no smaller than the iMac G4's housing and no more an engineering wonder than the iMac G5 behind the monitor.
Is Take Two dedicated to the cross platform capabilities of Civ IV?
As a Mac user, I was put off that Civ III came out for the Mac but no expansions did and even the patches stopped at 1.21f while the PC version went to 1.29g (and no, the 1.29 patch was not PC only bug fixes).
Any information on the support of non-Windows OS's?
Slashdot Mirror
It was just a joke, man. Lighten the holy mothereffing hell up. Don't be so sensitive.
Look who is being sensitive.
I would much rather discuss Carly's consumer focus and lack of legacy product line focus than her ethnicity. I don't care where she came from, she ended up as CEO of a global enterprise. Where did you end up?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again until I am forced by act of Congress to stop: NEVER hire a CEO with a last name that sounds like a pizzeria.
Interesting strategy there. Make several lucid and well considered points, then blow your credibility with a horribly racist comment. Why would someone with an Italian name make a bad CEO exactly?
Until that display of foot-up-your-own-ass, I was right there with you, cheering on your comment.
HP made great medial lab equipment, the aforementioned testing equipment, calculators, and so forth. And while I respect that the market changes and there is a need for "My First HP" toys, the need for the real deal hasn't vanished either.
I think that Carley was much more consumer focused, (and by the way, had a big job plopped in her lap with the Conpaq merger) and didn't come from a background that valued, or perhaps even respected, the previous lines of business that made HP so great.
A Preview of Longhorn is available here.
A rather thorough documentation of the future featureset is available
here.
It's easy for MS to post Billions in profits. Heck, they haven't had R&D costs in years, just change the menu colors, increment the year number, and start burnin Offic & Windows CDs.
What a circular argument that leaves no room for disagreement because it is a fact, not an opinion.
Of course when you are forced to do things "on the cheap" you will "end up cutting corners". Who disagrees with that?
What I _do_ disagree with is that lack of funding is a reason to fail. Lack of funding, as you pointed out, is a reason to do things efficiently. But with few resources, the program still could have allocated them in a way such as to know in the design and planning stage that the project was not feasible with current resources or else designed and implemented a successful project.
They didn't have to wait for a non-existant signla from Mars to tell them that, but that is what happened.
I have a real issue with people claiming the lack of funding was a root cause of failure.
Projects fail for inadequate project management, improper planning, a flaw in the design or execution. Spending more money and having more resources makes identifying and correcting these things _easier_ but is not a failure condition for the project.
Look at the amazing strides people have made with no 'funding' save their own ingenuity and drive. Certainly the British Space Program could have, with the very same financial resources allocated differently, either identified during the design phase that they did not have enough resources to move forward or else designed a successful misssion.
It's all about the Product Development Life Cycle (Define->Design->Develop->Deploy) and the interrelation of Time-Scope-Resources that allows a project to define two of the three, but the third one is defined by the other two. (If I need scope S completed in time T then I cannot also define budget B)
Bet it sucks on a mac, just like everything else.
That was a good one! You really showed me.
I know a lot of Apple employees who play Halo 2 too. Is that a story?
No, Apple employees playing Halo 2 is not a story, since Apple doesn't make anything to remotely compete with Halo 2, a video game only available on Microsoft's Xbox platform.
If however, Apple employees were buying Windows PCs in order to play Halo (the original) which has been ported to OS X then that _would_ be a story.
This is an interesting issue because it brings up the question of the 'target market'.
To illustrate, consider the executives of a national mobile home builder. None of these executives live in the mobile homes they sell, but justify their actions because they are not in the demographic of the mobile home target market.
Conversely, consider the alternative "I liked it so much, I bought the company" situation where a product is so good and has such a broad demographic that everyone who works for them owns and uses the product.
I would argue that portable media players do not appeal to as wide a target market as say, Bic Pens. But at the same time, they are not as niche as the mobile home market either.
If Bic had their own staff showing up to company meetings with the other guy's pens, I would say they would be in same boat as Microsoft. But of course, Bic is not in that same boat.
Sorry, you are wrong.
I say they are sly as a fox, earning those extra margins for the gotta-have-it-now crowd, THEN bringing even MORE people in with the "oh its such a great deal I definitely gotta get one now!" effect.
Apple's price protection plan is a ten calendar day price matching for anyone buying something up to ten days before the price changes.
As is widely reported, those who purchased the Mac mini were sent e-mails notifying them of adjustments to the price they paid.
I think a recent blunder many remember but will soon be forgotten is the whole iMac G5 blunder.
Apple misjudged product availability and actually ran out of iMac G4's for two months before they released the iMac G5.
Yeah, the iMac G5 has relaly been making sales records at Apple, but how much of that is due to there being nothing in the iMac line for people to buy for two months?
Let me take a stab at the origin of Intel's "VIIV" trademark...
...[does Google Search]...
Oh, no worries, this is just the board of director's retreat. That crazy Intel board, working so hard. Deserves a break.
This looks like a decent resource but I find their "timing" gudelines somewhat misleading. For instance, the PowerBook line and the iMac line both had "upgrades" to them after just two months because they had different sizes introduced (12"/17" PB and 20" iMac). This shifts the whole "average" significantly because of the short cycle.
But still, as a tool this is better than having nothing. So the question is, if the iMac G5 was announced 8/31/04 (but Apple stopped selling the G4 (7/1/04) then this G5 is currently 5 months old, or 150 days. The iMac G4 line saw it's last update (excluding the 20") 9/03 before the G5 was introduced 8/04.
By this logic, we are smack dab in the middle of the iMac G5 life cycle. Even in a best case senario, we won't see a new iMac G5 for a couple months.
Please, people. How dumb are you? How many times does this have to be pointed out?
Whoa, get over yourself!
This is a geek website for people who think k00! is a word. It isn't a submission for a writing exam.
Are you drunk?
nice
[why] LCD that you cannot keep and use with another computer
Excellent point!
I am troubled with this too, but I also find myself askinging, if this iMac G5 will be relevant and useful 5, 6, 8 years from now, would I really be happy investing in a monitor that will last me that long, plus the life span of another computer? In other words, if conservatively, a Mac is relevant for five years, and I want to get two lifespans out of a monitor, I will be selecting a monitor for the next ten years. And in that ten year lifetime, will the monitor not get damaged (scratched), have a hardware failure, or become so outdated as to be irrelevant before the 10 years is up?
Such a touch decision.
I think of the iMac sort of like a Laptop - buy it the way you want it to be because you won't be able to upgrade latter. Laptops run their useful life and then nothing can be harvested but the data they held.
Good catch. The iMac G4 used SO-DIMM. I was assuming the iMac G5 did as well. My bad.
[Let me first say I cannot believe this 1x1px Gif is getting the press it has all over the Internet]
WIth talk of Mac mini's, iPod Shuffles, and G5 PowerBooks, I cannot get any pulse on Imac G5 upgrades.
My laptop went out on me last week and I want to replace it with an iMac G5 (yeah, I know it isn't a laptop) but don't want to be one of those people who buys the computer and then two weeks later news of significant improvements emerge.
Any buying advice on iMac G5 timing? While you're at it, thoughts on the $400 permium for the 20" over the 17"? (also doubles the HD to 160 GB I believe).
I happened upon a homebrew PC mini worth taking a look at.
It is interesting to me that the Mac Mini uses a Laptop hard drive. The Mac Mini and iMac G5 also share the same laptop slot-loading drive as the PowerBooks. Airport cards in desktops and laptops are identical too. The Mac Mini does NOT use laptop ram but the iMac line does. Obviously the iPod is using some small hard drive, perhaps one also used in laptops, but I am only guessing.
The point is that Apple is enjoying some economies of scale. By buying larger quantities of laptop parts, they not only get better per unit pricing, but also reduce inventories, support costs, engineering overhead, etc.
If they are smart, the big PC makers will follow suite inroder to reduce costs for their laptops as well as provide cooler desktops.
Apple recognized with the iMac that the computer needed to move from boxy to foxy. Dell, Gateway, and others tried but couldn't think outside the box. They just used black cases or rounded some edges. The Mac mini is really an evolution from the original iMac and is no smaller than the iMac G4's housing and no more an engineering wonder than the iMac G5 behind the monitor.
We are renovating our kitchen and are putting in just such a device. It's called an 17" iMac G5.
Is Take Two dedicated to the cross platform capabilities of Civ IV?
As a Mac user, I was put off that Civ III came out for the Mac but no expansions did and even the patches stopped at 1.21f while the PC version went to 1.29g (and no, the 1.29 patch was not PC only bug fixes).
Any information on the support of non-Windows OS's?
Something worth considering (or in HDTV. They look very nice, small, and include remote ontrols
So what's the total for a tricked out mini?
I was able to configure one up to a surprising $40,553!